2025:HHC:6847 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3857 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Promila Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2-State. Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That the respondents may be ordered to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the grade of Senior Scale Stenographer or in the other equivalent grade from the due date with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he be permitted to make representation to the department concerned for redressal of her grievance in a time bound manner. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. A.K.Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner, who at present is working as a Stenographer, has not been promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. He states that since a vacancy of Senior Scale Stenographer is likely to arise on 31.03.2025, directions may be issued for the petitioner’s promotion against the vacant post, if she is otherwise eligible. 4. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate, fairly state that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of her grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, 2 shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the promotional post. March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3